1 | P a g e

In the matter of:

Golden Plains Wind Farm EES Inquiry and Planning Permit Application Panel

Expert Evidence of Dr Robert Thorne

NOISE

20 JUNE 2018

2 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Robert Thorne, and I am the Principal of Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd, 18 Lade

Street, Gaythorne Queensland 4051.

2. I am also the Registrar of Acoustar, a Registered Training Organisation (ID41013) at the same

address.

3. Acoustar has provided Nationally Recognised Training in Work Health and Safety; Noise Monitoring

and Evaluation, and Noise Management since 2014. I am a qualified assessor for Nationally Recognised

Training and as such review student work in the above units.

4. I hold a Doctorate in Health Sciences and I am a Fellow of the Royal Society of Public Health. I am a

member of the Institute of Acoustics (UK) and the Acoustical Society of America. I have worked at

state and local government levels concerned with matters of environmental regulation. I have had my

own professional environmental management practice since 1974. In more recent years I have worked

primarily in environmental acoustics and specific areas of psychoacoustics (the effects of sound and

noise on people). My CV is attached as Annex D.

5. As part of my doctoral research I studied wind farm noise as part of the human perception of low

amplitude sound and intrusive noise. In the past 12 years I have written noise impact reports on 24

wind farms and have investigated complaints of noise at 8 wind farms. One wind farm investigation

involved 25 participants and resulted in detailed objective and perception measurements.

6. I am familiar with NZS 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind farm noise and the previous 1998 edition.

7. Mr and Mrs Walton requested I undertake this review. The Walton farm is directly affected by a

number of wind turbines as shown on the plans in Annex A and B. The plans were provided to me by

Mr Walton and are sourced from application documents.

8. I have reviewed the Expert Witness Code of Conduct and agree to comply with it. This includes that

statements made are within my expertise, information relied on from others is stated as such, and I

have not omitted material facts.

3 | P a g e

Scope of evidence

9. The scope of my evidence is confined to noise issues as they may affect the Walton’s and their farm

workers. The scope includes:

• a brief review of the potential for adverse health effects (annoyance, sleep disturbance,

nuisance) in relation to the main residence and associated residences owned or under the

control of Mr and Mrs Walton.

• a brief review of the New Zealand Standard 6808:2010 noise limits, amenity issues, special

audible characteristics and infrasound in relation to the design of the wind farm and

associated turbines with respect to the Walton’s farm and residences;

• a brief review of the Marshall Day Acoustics Reports Appendix Q (February 2018) and

Appendix N (April 2018) of the wind farm planning permit application as it relates to wind farm

noise issues as it affects Mr and Mrs Walton, their residences, farm and farm workers;

• a brief review of the review by Mr Evans of Resonate (also Appendix N), limited to wind turbine

matters;

• a brief review of the draft planning conditions relating to noise.

10. Internal reference within this evidence is prefixed with “MDA” for Marshall Day Acoustics and

“NZS6808” for the New Zealand Standard NZS 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind farm noise. ‘The Project’

refers to the proposed Golden Plains wind energy facility.

Mr and Mrs WALTON and Family

11. Mr and Mrs Walton, their family and their farm workers farm the property “Wurrook South”

located on the central northern edge of the Project. The location of their homes are identified in Annex

A: the Walton family residence is W28-a and the second (farm worker) residence is V30-a. Annex B

shows the extents of the wind farm and its effects on the west, south and eastern boundaries.

12. Mr and Mrs Walton are concerned that the impact of offensive noise emissions and annoyance

from the proposed wind farm will be injurious to their family’s and employees’ personal comfort, and

such noise nuisance is likely to harm their health in the short to long-term.

13. There are 13 turbines proposed at or within 2km from the residences, as shown in Annex B. There

are 32 turbines situated within 2km of the property’s west, south and eastern boundaries. The Mt

Mercer Wind Farm is approximately 5km from the northern boundary. The Berrybank wind farm is

4 | P a g e

approximately 5km from the south-west extent of the proposed Golden Plains wind farm. The scaled

distances from the main residence to seven (7) turbines range from 1460 metres to 2000 metres, and

3 turbines at 2120 metres distant. The scaled distances from the second residence to six (6) turbines

ranges from 1280 metres to 2000 metres distant.

14. Photograph 1 illustrates the height of a simulated (Lego) wind turbine that is 150 metres tall from

ground level to centre of the hub and has 80 metre blades. The indicative turbines in the MDA report

are of similar dimensions (hub heights 115-130-155 metres). The house to the far left of the photo is

single story dwelling 5 metres high and is the equivalent of 1440 metres from the turbine. That is, the

main residence W28-a to the nearest turbine GP179. The second residence v30-a is similar as it is

directly affected by 4 turbines: GP128 at 1280 metres, GP140 at 1440 metres, GP156 at 1480 metres

and GP127 at 1500 metres. The model for this photograph is scaled at 1:400.

Photograph 1: simulation of Walton residences to nearest turbine.

15. The simulation is presented to illustrate the height of the turbine in relation to the dwelling and

demonstrate by visual means that there is no ability to screen the dwelling from the proposed

turbines. That is, sound/noise/pressure waves from the turbines directly impinges on the roof and

walls, windows and doors of the residence.

16. Two plates are presented to illustrate the effects of the wind farm on the property and residences

of Mr and Mrs Walton. Plate 1 illustrates the characteristics of a wind turbine. Plate 2 illustrates wind

movement and turbulence through a wind park. The distances between the Horns Rev1 turbines ( 70

metre hub height) is 560 metres, with a rotor diameter is 80 metres. By way of comparison, the effects

in Plate 2 will be similar at Golden Plains as the scaled distance between GP115 and GP116 is 680

metres; between GP149 and GP156 is 650 metres and between GP127 and GP128 is 740 metres, with

the nominated turbines having rotor diameters of 140 metres to 150 metres.

5 | P a g e

Plate 1: Noise generation from a wind turbine (with permission from M. Boswell)

Plate 2: Turbulence behind the Horns Rev1 wind farm under very humid conditions, 12 February 2008 at 1300 hours. (Photographer: Christian Steiness)

6 | P a g e

17. A rural environment, in my opinion, has a positive acoustic environment, unaffected by traffic or

industrial noise, only occasionally interrupted by farming activities that are typical for the land-use

and that would not be considered ‘noise’. As a younger person I lived on a farm in New Zealand and I

am well aware of the characteristics of a rural environment. A rural locality, in my opinion, can be

fairly described as being of ‘high amenity’ as-of-right.

18. I discuss the potential for sleep disturbance, annoyance, nuisance and potential health effects at

the Walton residences later in this evidence.

WIND FARM SOUND and NOISE

19. Wind farms and wind turbines are a unique source of sound and noise. My opinion, based on

observations and measurements, is the noise generation from a wind farm is like no other noise source

or set of noise sources. The sounds are often of low amplitude (volume or loudness) and are

constantly shifting in character (“waves on beach”, “rumble-thump”, “plane never landing”, etc).

20. Wind farm noise is not like, for example, traffic noise or the continuous hum from plant and

machinery. Wind turbines such as those proposed are large, unique and discrete noise sources

relative to dwellings and like aircraft, sound emissions are transmitted via the roof and windows.

Noise barriers at ground level are generally ineffective in screening or mitigation such sound.

21. Wind has audible and sub-audible character. That is, measurement of wind turbine sound will

always present sound levels in the audible, low-frequency and infrasonic frequencies. Sound in the

low frequencies – in the range of 30 Hz - 80 Hz to 250 Hz - are important as these are our fundamental

speech frequencies. They are also the low frequency range for rumble, hum and modulation that are

identified in turbine noise evaluations.

22. My own observation is that infrasound is a fundamental characteristic of wind noise and is

fundamental to the operation of a wind turbine. Some people are susceptible to pressure-pulse effects

from turbines. Measurement of infrasound is required to confirm the signature presence of a wind

turbine under windy conditions.

7 | P a g e

23. My own observations from many daytime and night-time monitoring and discussions with

residents at different wind farm locales under a lot of varying weather conditions are that wind farm

sound analysis presents three distinct issues:

• The identification of sound that can be directly attributed to the propagated sound of the

wind farm/turbines, measured as a background sound level, compared to the sound of the

ambient environment without the presence of the wind turbines;

• The physical measurement and evaluation of any ‘special audible characteristics’ of the wind

farm/turbines, such as distinct tonal complexes and modulation effects (amplitude and

frequency) that may affect human health through sleep disturbance;

• Identification, through perception studies, of sound characteristics that do actually disturb

individuals.

24. My own observations is that sound propagation varies significantly under different wind

conditions and influences both the background levels and the character of the sound, especially:

• when there is a strong breeze at the turbines but no or little breeze at the residence;

• when the prevailing breeze is blowing from the wind farm to the residence; or

• under conditions of cool, clear evenings/nights/mornings when a mist (inversion) covers the

ground.

25. My own observations at operational wind farms at distances of around 800 to 2500 metres

(average 1400-1500 metres) show that sound levels are higher under calm or inversion conditions

(cold clear night) at the observer than under unstable conditions (e.g. light breeze during the day).

Sound levels under inversion conditions – where cooler air is near the ground - are often louder and

clearer at observer locations. Under stable (little or no wind) or inversion conditions sound levels do

not decay as quickly compared to unstable conditions.

26. My own observations are that the actual sound levels from the wind farm may vary considerably

within any 24-hour period, due to weather conditions. As with special audible characteristics,

measurement of wind farm noise for compliance requires full-time real-time monitoring for a

significant time period in order for compliance to be proven or not-proven at any affected residence.

This applies to both audible and inaudible sound. Plate 1 illustrates the generation of noise from a

turbine.

8 | P a g e

27. My experience is that modelled sound level predictions are generally not “accurate” as they do

not present the sound levels that will be heard at any one location at any one time. Rather, a

prediction is a mathematical equation referenced to a lot of assumptions and uncertainties. Because

of this, the predicted levels are also “uncertain”. The art in prediction is to identify all the assumptions

and uncertainties to present a realistic assessment under conditions representative of the

environment, weather conditions and meaningful time periods. This is extremely difficult to do and

cannot be done with certainty using prediction methods such as ISO 9613-2:1996 Acoustics-

Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors; Part 2 General method of calculation alone. As a

consequence I believe that reputable prediction tables should, as a minimum, state the estimated

accuracy for broadband noise (Table 5) which is +/- 3 dB at 1000 metres.

APPLICATION OF NZS 6808:2010 TO NOISE ASSESSMENT IN GOLDEN PLAINS

Introduction – Noise “Limits”

28. NZS 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise is referenced in the DELWP document “Policy and

Planning Guidelines – Development of wind energy facilities in Victoria” :

13. Subject to condition 14, at any wind speed, noise emissions from the operation of the facility,

when measured at noise sensitive locations, must comply with the limits specified in the

Standard.

29. The Standard presents methods for the prediction, measurement, and assessment of sound from

wind turbines. The Standard claims that: “In the context of the Resource Management Act, application

of this Standard will provide reasonable protection of health and amenity at noise sensitive locations.”

30. The Standard is not mandated in the RMA. The Standard is considered as a guide to adopting the

best practicable option to ensure the emission of noise from the land does not exceed a reasonable

level; the duty to avoid unreasonable noise. The Standard is written specifically for reference in NZ

legislation and is not written for Victorian legislation or conditions.

31. The New Zealand Environment Court has considered the guideline noise limits in NZS6808 and in

a 2017 decision1 states (para. 25 in part):

“… The experts advising the City Council and Windflow have assumed the adverse effect of noise

is acceptable provided that the wind turbine complies with the guideline noise limits in the New

1 New Zealand Environment Court Decision No. 2017 NZEnvC 119, 9 August 2017.

9 | P a g e

Zealand Standard 6808. We disagreed. Whether the effect of the noise below the guideline limits

is adverse is sensitive to the receiving environment in which that noise is experienced.”

and para. 26 in part, referring to a specific type of turbine and character of noise:

“… The turbine noise is clearly audible above background sound, even though the level of turbine

noise does not exceed the guideline limits in the New Zealand Standard. The particular character

of this noise and its unpredictability has had an adverse effect on general enjoyment of the

properties and for some disturbed their sleep.

32. The lesson I take from the decision is that the NZS6808 guidelines are just that, guidelines. The

guidelines do not provide absolute criteria the meeting of which is certain to avoid unreasonable

noise, in any context.

33. NZS6808 states at Clause 5.1.1 that “Limits for wind farm sound are required to provide protection

against sleep disturbance and maintain reasonable amenity at noise sensitive locations”. Clause 5.1.2

recommends an outdoors noise limit of 40 dB LA90(10 min) to provide a satisfactory level of protection

against sleep disturbance. In Clause 5.1.3 this level is also stated as being “appropriate” for protecting

the health and amenity of residents for most noise sensitive activities. The criteria are expanded in

Clause 5.1.4 to include the variable effects of wind. Based on my experience in urban and rural noise

investigations in New Zealand and Australia these claims are, in my opinion, not correct.

34. NZS 6808 Clause 5.2 states: “As a guide to acceptability…” and “… should …”. At this point, in my

opinion, NZS6808 ceases to be of merit in determining acceptability based on the expressed noise

criteria and becomes a guideline for the monitoring and assessment of background sound levels. The

guide value given, on reading NZS6808, is:

As a guide to the limits of acceptability at a noise sensitive location, at any wind speed wind

farm sound levels (LA90(10 min)) should not exceed the background sound level by more than 5 dB,

or a level of 40 dB LA90(10 min), whichever is the greater.

(underlining mine)

35. The noise “limit” is not a limit as such as the regression line that forms the basis of the evaluation

has confidence levels, or measures of uncertainty that need to be defined, usually by expressing the

variation as curves of ±1 Standard Error (SE) which bound approximately 68% of the data.. That is, the

background derived by the regression curve will not always be observed in fact. Chart 1 following

illustrates this. The point being, care must be taken when considering background levels that will be

10 | P a g e

used in compliance analysis – the true background may well be different, and is illustrated by the

range of blue dots (background levels) above and below the curve. Broadly, anything above the SD

line is in exceedance.

Chart 1. Filtered LA90s with a fitted third order polynomial and ±1 Standard Error (SE) at residence

36. Although background monitoring has not been conducted at the Walton farm, I would expect

night-time levels in the mid to low 20’s. I am advised by Mrs Walton that monitoring station Q30-a is

the closest background level station. The derived MDA night-time background level for a wind speed

of 9 m/s is estimated at 27.5 dB LA90. In Table 36 the Senivon 3.6M140 turbine predicted LA90 level

with a wind speed of 9 m/s is 36.5 dB LA90 at the worker’s residence and 37.1 dB LA90 at the main

residence. The Vestas V150 115m turbine with a wind speed of 9 m/s is 37.8 dB LA90 at the worker’s

residence and 38.4 dB LA90 at the main residence. The 155 metres turbine is similar.

37. NZS6808 provides a lower noise limit of 35 dB for areas of high amenity. Such areas are defined

in New Zealand district planning codes that do not apply in Victoria. Clause C5.3.1 of NZS6808

provides a guide to high amenity; if the arithmetic average difference in an evening or night-time

prescribed time frame is greater than 8 dB then a high amenity noise limit is likely to be justified. The

turbine average level at 8m/s is 37 dB LA90 and the night-time background level is 25 dB LA90.

This exceeds the 8 dB guide-value by a considerable margin and the ‘high amenity’ 35 dB LA90 criterion

is warranted and applied in my discussion concerning the permit noise conditions.

11 | P a g e

38. The rounded predicted LA90 turbine noise levels of 38 dB(A) at both residences over a rounded

background of 28 dB(A) will be clearly audible at night. In my opinion, by virtue of this, the sound is

unreasonable. The turbine levels are not static, and will vary considerable over the night and days,

24/365. When assessed with the estimated prediction accuracy of ±3 dB the range of estimated sound

levels from the turbines comes to 34 – 40 dB(A). Add to this the penalty of 5 dB for special audible

characteristics and an unreasonable “20 dB” over background is being imposed on the residents and

residences.

39. Amplitude modulation is a known and agreed feature of all wind turbines (NZS 6808 Clause CB3.1).

Turbines are a slowly rotating device and change direction to face the wind. The blades of the turbine

must pass the tower and this can generate a distinctive infrasound pulse that is used to identify an

active turbine or set of turbines. The audible level of modulation varies due to weather conditions

and interaction with other turbines.

40. Although I am recommending a noise limit of 35 dB LA90 this must be tagged with the caveat that

the “limit” will not guarantee freedom from sleep disturbance due to turbine noise; rather a lower

value may be appropriate.

Amenity

41. The expression ‘Peace and Quiet’ is often given as the benchmark for amenity in relation to sound

in an environment, but what is meant by peace, quiet, amenity and noise can vary across contexts,

and these expressions can mean different things to different people at different times.

42. Quiet is part of the “measure” between a tranquil environment and an intrusively noisy sound

environment. As such, quiet possesses an intrinsic value in terms of the overall sound within the

environment (soundscape) and how individuals and communities will react. People have expectations

for their environment and tend to describe it in terms of ‘quiet’; for example: “the environment is

quiet”; “we like the sense of peace here”; “the locale is loud, vibrant, noisy”; and so on.

43. My own observations are that rural environments such as those in the vicinity of a proposed wind

farm tend to be thought of as being ‘quiet’. These characteristics can be described in terms of

subjective and objective measures, e.g. upon how people feel about an area, its pleasantness or some

other value that makes it a desirable place in which to live. In particular, landscape and soundscape

characteristics mark an environment as a desirable (high amenity) or undesirable (low amenity) place

12 | P a g e

to occupy, as uniquely judged by the individual. Localities hosting stressors tend to provoke negative

emotions, and motivate an avoidance response, while localities free from stressors may induce

positive emotions and motivate an approach response.

44. My discussions with Mr and Mrs Walton indicate that they think their home and farm is a great

place, and free from intrusive noise. Peaceful. The locale is of a high amenity to them and this, to me,

reconfirms the high amenity noise guideline.

Turbine noise prediction

45. The prediction section of NZS6808 is a very sketchy outline of what is done in practice. NZS6808

Appendix C states that uncertainty “should” be stated. In fact, prediction uncertainty must be stated

(Clause 5.7) as it has a major effect on understanding the variability of the sound emissions under

investigation. The noise prediction model most often applied for noise assessment, ISO 9613-2 , has

values for estimated accuracy or uncertainty, with +/- 3dB at 1000 metres for a source of 30 m or less.

The standard was not written for wind farm noise prediction but it is used for this purpose.

46. The evaluation of wind farm noise is, or should be, no different to the evaluation of any other

industrial noise: what is the sound levels of the emissions, what is the character of the sound, what is

the risk of causing nuisance.

47. What is different is that wind farm noise is “measured” by comparing changes in pre- and post-

construction background levels, whereas industrial noise compares sound emissions to defined

criteria, which may be a background level in the absence of the noise under investigation. It is

essential, therefore, that independent reviewers have complete access to all pre-construction sound

and weather data and audio recordings for compliance evaluation.

48. The introduction of a long-term (nominal 30 years) wind farm industrial activity creating noise will

have greater effect in the environment than, say, a harvester used occassionally at the same dB level.

49. Compliance with NZS 6808 depends on the presence – or not – of special audible characteristics

(SAC). NZS6808 states that special audible characteristics may be:

• Tonal, for example, a hum or whine from sources such as transformers or gear boxes;

• Impulsive sound, for example, bangs or thumps;

• Amplitude modulation, asynchronous or synchronous beating.

13 | P a g e

50. MDA have relied on ‘candidate turbines’ and applied assumed sound power levels. This approach

means that the whole assessment becomes an assumption. This is a very real concern as residents

have no certainty that a particular sound level ascribed to the property or residence is actually what

will occur in future. Critically, the draft permit condition 1(a)(i) and (ii) allows for any turbine that

meets the dimension requirement of ‘maximum blade tip height of up to 230 metres above ground

level’ and a ‘Minimum blade tip clearance from ground level no less than 40 metres.’

51. However, wind turbine noise can include evaluation to or for measures not just sound power. It

is these measures that allow a risk-based analysis one one turbine against another in terms of noise

evaluation. IEC 61400-11:2012 Wind turbines Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques

Appendix A: Other possible characteristics of wind turbine noise emission and their quantification

states:

A.1 General

In addition to those characteristics of wind turbine noise described in the main text of this

standard, the noise emission may also possess some, or all, of the following:

• infrasound;

• low-frequency noise;

• impulsivity;

• low-frequency modulation of broad band or tonal noise;

• other, such as a whine, hiss, screech or hum, etc., distinct impulses in the noise, such as

• bangs, clatters, clicks, or thumps, etc.

These characteristics are described briefly below, and possible quantitative measures discussed.

It should be noted that certain aspects of infrasound, low frequency noise, impulsivity and

amplitude modulation are not fully understood at present. Thus it may prove that measurement

positions farther away from the wind turbine than those specified in the standard may be

preferable for the determination of these characteristics.

52. Due to the nature of an operational turbine modulation is a continuous feature of the wind farm

under normal operational conditions – but the sound may not always be audible. The character of the

sound – audible modulation of low frequencies in particular – can not be determined “all the time” on

the basis of personal physical observation and real-time continuous audio recording for later narrow-

band analysis is essential for SAC evaluation. Therefore the informative information described

previously becomes a critical part of a risk-based noise assessment.

14 | P a g e

Compliance – Essential to retain background levels for independent review

53. Compliance under NZS6808 is assessed as: “To determine conformance with the [approval limits]

a comparison shall be made between the best fit regression line of the background sound levels and

the regression curve of the operational wind farm corrected for any special audible characteristics at

each noise sensitive location”. This means that the measured background sound levels and wind data

must be retained and made available to an independent reviewer or regulator for compliance

assessment.

54. Under NZS6808 if background sound levels were not measured prior to installation then they will

need to be obtained with the wind farm operating. The turbines must not be operating or must be

switched off for the testing. There are practical difficulties in either approach.

55. There are, of course, obvious difficulties of establishing the “level” of wind farm noise in ambient

noise but under night-time conditions relating to sleep disturbance this must be determined and

consequently the background levels must be retained for future compliance evaluation.

56. It is clear that any “compliance” report that fails to specifically address special audible

characteristics and night-time levels must in itself be non-compliant. That is, assessment must be

made under observed conditions. The reasons for this are:

• The constantly changing nature of the wind farm noise from inaudible (turbines stopped) to

audible (turbines operating);

• Variable number and location of operating turbines;

• Changing wind direction and wind speeds that change noise propagation characteristics

leading to increased or decreased noise; and

• Residents sleep with windows open and wind farm noise disturbs sleep.

57. Audio recordings are necessary for background and compliance assessments. The recordings can

inadvertently collect interactions at residences and must be retained confidentially. The recordings

are applied to narrow-band and critical band analysis of special audible characteristics.

58. I have made observations and measurements at different wind farms under different weather

conditions and measurement distances indicate the sound of turbines are individually observable

(swish, rumbles, clunks, whines) at distances of 200 – 500 metres. At around 900 metres only clearly

distinctive turbines are identifiable (swish, rumbles) and by 2000-3000 metres the sound of turbines

15 | P a g e

is cumulative and is heard as a general source of noise. At each location the wind farm could be clearly

heard at dwellings approximately 2000 metres from the nearest turbines. The sound of turbines can

be heard 2000 metres upwind and 2000 metres downwind, as well at an angle to the turbines. The

sound, with turbines operating, can be described as a steady rumble with a mixture of rumble –

thumps. Turbine sound character varies regularly both in “loudness” and “tonality”. The general

character of a long time period of an hour or so is of a steady rumble. This, however, depends

considerably on wind speed and direction.

59. Table 1 sets out the perception of wind turbine sound in relation to outdoor measured and

predicted sound levels, in relation to the nearest wind turbine. The table was derived from my Waubra

– Cape Bridgewater study in 2012. The column marked ‘distress’ includes severe and on-going sleep

disturbance experienced by individuals. In my opinion the table presents a series of warning markers

that individuals can be, and are, affected by wind turbine noise at distances similar to those that are

being proposed for the Walton’s residences.

Table 1: Distances to nearest turbine, sound levels, and perception by residents.

60. Of the 25 participants in 2012 I understand that 4 families (7 individuals) have moved from their

homes due to noise issues. Others have stayed in the locale because they cannot leave their farms.

16 | P a g e

61. My own observations are that the sound of turbines is also evident and sometimes more

pronounced inside a dwelling, windows open or closed. Wind turbine sound at residences around

2000 metres or so is perceptible outside or inside a dwelling. The sound of turbines is often clearer

inside a dwelling as higher frequencies from other exterior sounds are reduced through the building

fabric. Masking of turbine sound by tree rustle or wind noise although insect noise however affects

the measurement at all the different broadband outside sound levels (LAeq, Ldn, Lden, LA90).

Potential for Adverse Health Effects

62. NZS6808 clearly states that sleep disturbance is an issue. Turbine noise can lead directly to

annoyance and sleep disturbance (primary health effects), or can induce annoyance by degrading

amenity. The secondary heath effects include immediate reductions in general well-being, with stress-

related disease emerging from chronic annoyance and sleep disturbance. The effect of noise on

health, and on wind turbine noise on health, was fully canvassed in the case Waubra Foundation v

Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)

in Adelaide, with the decision handed down on 4 December 2017. I gave evidence on behalf of the

Foundation. The full decision can be found at:

https://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Comms/LN/LN_20171204.aspx

63. Significant findings from the Decision are:

473. The applicant submitted that the evidence in the hearing provided plausible and credible

evidence of the kind required. Counsel referred in particular to the effect of noise on sleep and,

in particular, in disturbing sleep. It was not contentious that impaired sleep, if sufficiently

serious, may result in a number of ailments and diseases. Professor Wittert said that “depression

and sleep disturbance are, respectively, the first and third most common psychological reasons

for patient encounters in general practice”. The professor went on to say that insomnia doubles

the risk of future development of depression and that insomnia symptoms together with

shortened sleep are associated with hypertension. Professor Wittert also said that a person

suffering from restricted sleep is exposed to an increased risk of elevated blood sugar levels and

endocrine disorders such as diabetes, symptomatic ischaemic heart disease, hypertension,

obesity, insomnia and anxiety related illnesses.

476. As our earlier findings have indicated, some wind farms generate sound which is capable

of causing, and does cause, annoyance. We are further satisfied that annoyance of the kind

17 | P a g e

which is generated (often associated with psychological distress and sleep disturbance), is a

recognised pathway to a range of adverse health outcomes, including hypertension and

cardiovascular disease.

481. It follows in our view that the applicant has established that there is a plausible basis for

thinking that wind turbine sound (mediated by annoyance) may lead to adverse health

outcomes, such as to warrant further investigation. It is unnecessary for us to draw conclusions

as to the precise nature of the annoyance which is caused, and whether annoyance may be

caused by sound which is not audible (infrasound). That is something which we expect will be

the subject of further study and investigation. For our purposes, it is sufficient that annoyance is

produced, and it appears that it may be associated with adverse health outcomes. An

identification of the causes of that annoyance may allow it to be reduced or mitigated and

adverse health outcomes to be reduced or avoided.

483. We have not overlooked the evidence to the effect that, while annoyance is produced by

wind farms, it may have no association with wind turbine sound emissions and instead be related

to other things, such as loss of amenity, the appearance of the turbines and consequent change

to the landscape, blinking lights, or other factors. Whether that is so is yet to be established, one

way or the other. We accept that the results of the Health Canada study could be consistent with

a conclusion that the annoyance experienced is unrelated to the sound emissions. However, by

reason of the limitations to which we have referred, that study cannot be regarded as conclusive.

The evidence indicates that more work is needed to either prove or disprove this proposition.

MDA REVIEW

64. At page 5 of the Environmental Noise Effects Assessment MDA claim that the assessment “adopts

a risk assessment framework which is based on rating the likelihood and consequence of the effects

of the project.” and “The risk assessment framework for the noise study is therefore structured around

the assessment methodologies defined in relevant policy and guidelines.”

65. I disagree.

66. The assessment is clearly not a risk assessment as, in my experience, the steps involved in

analysing risks include:

18 | P a g e

• Analysing the cause of the risk;

• Determining the potential consequences of the risk;

• Determining the frequency of exposure to the risk;

• Determining the likelihood of the risk occurring;

• Categorising the risk;

• Prioritising the risk; and

• Documenting the results of the risk analysis.

67. In my opinion the MDA report is simply a report of background sound levels and noise predictions,

with a simple descriptive introduction. It in no way attempts a risk analysis or assessment – otherwise

the risks involved with high amenity background levels, insufficient background monitoring and

keeping of records, prediction uncertainty and special audible characteristics’ penalties would have

been thoroughly discussed.

68. The assessment does not include a detailed assessment of weather conditions as they affect sound

generation and propagation; especially the risk of inter-turbine turbulence creating adverse noise at

noise sensitive locations. At Annex C I have attached the wind rose provided by the applicant. On a

descriptive basis it is clear that there is significant risk of adverse sound levels from the north, west

and south west, and also from the south-east. This means, in a risk-based assessment, there would

be an analysis of wind speed and direction vs noise levels over a 12-month period.

69. The MDA report, Appendix N3, Section 1 states:

The analysis presented in this report is based on correlations with the best currently available

representation of wind speeds at the site. It is envisaged that, if the development proceeds,

improved site wind speed data would be available in future. Accordingly, the background noise

data and derived noise limits presented in this report are indicative values presented for

informative purposes only. Any future use of the background noise data during the

development or operation of the project would involve reanalysis with a refined wind data set

based on additional measurements of site wind trends and patterns.

section 2.2 states:

“… Further, at this stage in the project, the background noise survey data is primarily used as

an indication of background noise trends at receiver locations around the Golden Plains Wind

Farm site.” Emphasis mine

19 | P a g e

The caveat by MDA confirms that the report is really a draft for the Project concept; it is not acceptable

as a report required to present the fundamental background sound levels that residents and

regulators must rely on for compliance with NZS6808.

70. The background sound monitoring does not fully cover the locale covered by the wind farm, nor

is there any long-term (e.g. 12 month) monitoring. The means that a risk-based analysis can not be

made as there is insufficient information to assess.

71. The assessment refers to ‘candidate turbines’. Apart from recording the relevant sound power

levels the report is silent on the matters that matter in Appendix A of IEC61400-11:2012. These

matters are critical to a proper evaluation and assessment of effect of turbines in the specific acoustic

environments affected by the wind farm – rural and township.

72. The prediction assumptions (page 36) apply a 10 metre terrain contour. This is acceptable only for

a draft or preliminary assessment. Houses are nominally single story at 5 metres high. No explanation

is given for this choice of terrain setting.

73. The The prediction assumptions (page 36) apply a ground factor G=0.5. This is a difficult setting

as there is debate as to whether rural land is “hard” with G=0 or “acoustically soft G=1”. The

differences are significant with sound levels varying, Table 2. I have no issue with the approach taken

by MDA but a risk-based assessment would/should identify the variation of +5dB from soft to hard

ground at representative noise sensitive locations.

Table 2: Ground factors – variation in sound levels under default conditions.

Receptor Description Height Calm, Ground 0.0 Calm, Ground 0.5 Calm, Ground 1.0

A House 1.8 35 32 30

74. MDA calculate all the residential noise levels in terms of LA90. There is no technical or scientific

explanation in the assessment that I can find that states how a calculated sound power level in LAeq

becomes an LA90 sound level in the noise predictions. I do not see this calculation in SoundPLAN 7.4

or SoundPLAN 8.0. There is no explanation as to why MDA have chosen to not state the LAeq sound

levels at residences. There is no explanation as to why MDA have chosen to not include representative

third-octave band sound levels at residences. All these matters are essential, in my opinion, for a risk-

based assessment.

20 | P a g e

75. NZS6808 Clause 5.6 requires an assessment of the cumulative effects of all wind farms affecting

any noise sensitive location. There are two wind farms potentially affecting the Project – Berrybank

and Mount Mercer. MDA do not present an assessment in terms of audible sound or in terms of

infrasound. Clause 5.6.1, in my opinion, applies to both audible, low frequency and infrasound.

76. My professional opinion is that the MDA report is not an adequate risk-assessment report in the

terms of NZS6808 for a Project of this size, complexity, and potential harm in the environment.

Review of Resonate Review

77. The review report by Mr Evans of Resonate has been considered. A peer review by definition is:

Professional or scholarly. An impartial critique of someone else’s work to determine if it is sound

and robust. The review is based on the reviewer’s own research / experience and knowledge of

the current literature in the field. The role of the reviewer is not to bring in new information, but

rather to say whether or not, in the reviewer’s expert opinion, that the person’s work being

reviewed is sound. If there are errors or critical omissions, these need to be highlighted with

appropriate justification. If the information / data is considered accurate, this should be noted.

78. I have undertaken peer reviews for PhD students and for student engineering research papers and

acoustic consultants’ impact assessment reports. It is unusual, in my experience, to be requested to

peer review a peer review as quite obviously the person being reviewed is not known to the reviewer

and no interaction is possible over the MDA source material or the Reviewer’s (Mr Evan’s) comments.

I also see that the MDA peer reviewer has himself been reviewed by Mr Jon Cooper.

79. Therefore, my review with respect to Mr Evan’s report is confined to brief “agree and disagree”

statements.

1. Page 3, High amenity. I agree with Mr Evans regarding the NZ planning system and disagree with

his view concerning the application of limits (pages 3, 4).

2. Page 4. Wind turbine noise assessment. I agree that the candidate turbines are just that but a

reviewer would normally point out that other, higher power turbines could be installed and that

the candidates are simply ‘expressions of interest’. A candidate turbine is no more than an

assumption and therefore all the calculated/predicted sound levels are assumptions.

3. I agree with his point about the EPRs as this is most important.

21 | P a g e

4. Page 5. Wind turbine noise prediction. I note the comment about topographic information at 10

metres and agree that this is acceptable for a preliminary assessment.

5. While the reliance placed on IoA information is appreciated, the -2dB correction for sound power

levels LAeq to LA90 is not supported in my field measurements in NZ or Australia.

6. In my opinion, Mr Evans should have reported on MDA not including uncertainty-estimation

accuracy in the prediction calculations.

7. In my opinion, Mr Evans should have reported on the process MDA applied to translate the LAeq

sound power levels into LA90 values. Therefore, I disagree with the summary top of page 6.

8. Page 7. Consideration of high amenity level. I agree with Mr Evan’s comments but disagree with

the summary. There is an obligation on MDA to fully follow NZS6808 and this includes a

calculation of high amenity and a discussion concerning high amenity.

9. Possibly at this point Mr Evans should have raised a critique of the relatively few monitoring

stations and lack of detailed wind data for such a large development; plus the need to retain such

data for any independent review.

10. In my opinion, Mr Evans should have reported the caveat MDA has placed on their background

sound monitoring and wind data in Appendix N3.

11. Special audible characteristics. While in part I agree with Mr Evan’s I think SAC’s are a difficult

matter. I have addressed this previously in my review of the MDA report. Consequently I must

disagree with the SAC summary but do agree with the SAC Recommendations.

12. Overall, Mr Evans could have critiqued the MDA statement that the turbine report was/is a Risk

Assessment (page 5) of the MDA report. I have addressed this previously in my review of the MDA

report.

13. My scope of review does not include any other matters.

PLANNING CONDITIONS

80. The draft Planning Permit (reference: PA1700266) contains a condition for noise limits (No. 11),

compliance assessment (Nos. 15, 16) and conditions for noise management (Nos. 17, 18). These

conditions do not in themselves meet the purpose of NZS6808 “to provide protection against sleep

disturbance and maintain reasonable amenity at noise sensitive locations”. “Noise” is unwanted

sound and is a subjective assessment. Sound is a physical condition and can be measured. Therefore,

condition (11) must refer to “sound” while it is acceptable for the “Noise” management conditions to

refer to noise.

22 | P a g e

81. Draft Condition 11 states:

Wind Farm Performance Requirement

11. Subject to condition 0, at any wind speed, noise from the operation of the wind turbines,

when measured at noise sensitive locations, must comply with the limits specified in clause 5.2

of the Standard.

82. Clause 5.2 of NZS6808 is NOT a noise limit; it is a discretionary sound level due to the expression

“should”. Condition 11 of the Planning Permit must be amended to state the specific ‘background’

noise limit criteria of 35 dB(A) that the wind farm operator must meet.

83. The draft permit conditions do not have criteria to identify and manage special audible

characteristics. Adverse audible characteristics are essential issues relating to annoyance and nuisance

with wind farm/wind turbine noise and NZS6808 applies a penalty of 5dB for the presence of audible

SACs. The draft permit conditions must provide a management condition.

84. The draft permit conditions do not have criteria to manage noise levels that may disturb sleep.

Noise management is an essential issue with wind farm/wind turbine noise. The draft permit

conditions must provide a management condition.

85. The draft permit conditions do not have a requirement to disclose and include prediction

uncertainty. The draft permit conditions must provide a management condition to require prediction

uncertainty.

86. One of the most significant problems with post-construction noise monitoring is that the original

measured background sound levels and wind speed/direction data is not available to an independent

reviewer. The draft permit conditions must provide access to this data.

87. The noise limits presently applying to some existing wind farms in Victoria are significantly better

in addressing the issues raised above. The existing condition reads:

The operation of the wind energy facility must comply with the New Zealand Standard ‘Acoustics – The

Assessment and Measurement of Sound From Wind Turbine Generators’ (NZ 6806:1998) (the ‘New

Zealand Standard’), in relation to any dwelling existing at the date of approval of this document to the

satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

23 | P a g e

In determining compliance with the New Zealand Standard, the following apply:

(a) The sound level from the wind energy facility, when measured outdoors within 10 metres of a

dwelling at any relevant nominated wind speed, should not exceed the background level (L95)

by more than 5dBA or a level of 40dBA, whichever is the greater.

(b) When sound has a special audible characteristic, the measured sound level of the source shall

have a 5 dB penalty added.

(c) Compliance at night must be separately assessed with regard to night-time data. For these

purposes the night is as defined in SEPP-N1. For sleep protection purposes. A breach of the

standard set out in (a), for 10% of the night, amounts to a breach of the condition.

88. Condition 11 amendment.

The condition, amended to read the 2010 standard, background as L A90 and a 35 dB(A) limit, now

reads:

The operation of the wind energy facility must comply with the New Zealand Standard ‘Acoustics –

Wind farm noise’ (NZ 6808:2010) (the ‘New Zealand Standard’), in relation to any dwelling existing at

the date of approval of this document to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

(a) The sound level from the wind energy facility, when measured outdoors within 10 metres of

a dwelling at any relevant nominated wind speed, should not exceed the background level

(L90) by more than 5dBA or a level of 35dBA, whichever is the greater.

(b) When sound has a special audible characteristic, the measured sound level of the source shall

have a 5 dB penalty added.

(c) Compliance at night must be separately assessed with regard to night-time data. For these

purposes the night is as defined in SEPP-N1. For sleep protection purposes. A breach of the

standard set out in (a), for 10% of the night, amounts to a breach of the condition.

89. Condition 15 amendments.

89.1 Add a third paragraph to the Condition 15, Compliance Assessment, Pre-construction assessment

3rd paragraph

Pre-construction Noise Assessment must contain a statement to identify and numerate the

uncertainties that arise from ‘model’ calculations of the turbine noise at each noise sensitive

location and day- night-times.

89.2 Add a fourth paragraph to the Condition 15, Compliance Assessment, Pre-construction

assessment

4th paragraph

Pre-construction Noise Assessment must contain a report detailing the ‘Other possible

characteristics of wind turbine noise and their quantification’ in accordance with Annex A

IEC61400-11:2012 Wind turbines-Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques

24 | P a g e

89.3 Add a fifth paragraph to the Condition 15, Compliance Assessment, Pre-construction assessment

5th paragraph

Background monitoring survey data, in their original form as recorded by each individual field

sound level meter at each residence, shall be retained and made available for independent

review under conditions 19 to 23.

89.4 Add a sixth paragraph to the Condition 15, Compliance Assessment, Pre-construction assessment

6th paragraph

Wind speed and direction monitoring survey data, in their original form as recorded for

assessment at each residence, shall be retained and made available for independent review

under conditions 19 to 23.

SUMMARY

1. My professional opinion is that the MDA report is not a risk-assessment report in the terms of

NZS6808 for a Project of this size, complexity, and potential harm in the environment.

2. I conclude that there is a significant risk of disturbed sleep from adverse and unreasonable

noise effects on Mr and Mrs Walton and their farm workers from the operation of the wind

turbines.

3. I conclude that the certain of the proposed conditions relating to noise limits and noise

conditions do not offer certainty in application, are not best-practice, and require substantial

revision and amendment.

DECLARATION

‘I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance

which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.’

Signed: Robert Thorne

Date: 20 June 2018

25 | P a g e

ANNEX A: LOCATION OF THE WALTON RESIDENCES AND ADJACENT TURBINES

Reference: http://w-wind.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GPWF_Project-Overview_228-Layout_Aerial_23.10.17.pdf

26 | P a g e

ANNEX B: WIND FARM, WALTON PROPERTY AND ADJACENT WIND FARMS

Plan of wind farm, location of farm and residences, and location of adjacent wind farms provided by Mr Walton

27 | P a g e

ANNEX C: WIND ROSE FOR THE LOCALITY

Source: Annex B.

28 | P a g e

Annex D: Robert Thorne Qualifications and Resume

Full name and address

Robert Thorne

18 Lade Street Brisbane Queensland 4051

Academic background:

• PhD in Health Science (‘Assessing intrusive noise and low amplitude sound’, Massey University, 2007)

• New Zealand Diploma in Science (Noise Management, 1985)

• Diploma in Acoustics and Noise Control (UK Institute of Acoustics 1985; specialist subjects Architectural

Acoustics, Law & Administration)

• Royal Society for the Promotion of Health Diploma in Health Engineering (1981)

• Royal Society of Health Diploma in Air Pollution Control (1978)

• Royal Society of Health Diploma for Public Health Inspectors (1970)

Professional Affiliations:

• Fellow, Royal Society of Public Health, UK

• Member, Institute of Acoustics, UK

• Member, Acoustical Society of America

Doctoral Research

In 2008 I completed my doctoral research into assessing intrusive noise and low amplitude sound. As part of this

research I spent some two years’ studying the effects of wind farms on people in the Manawatu, New Zealand.

The study included people in greenfields’ locales (no turbines installed) and in locales where turbines were

operational. The basic research was to develop a method of assessment for intrusive noise and instrumentation

for low amplitude sound. The research work included attitudinal and acoustical studies with people affected by

wind farms and people not affected. The outcomes from this research included methodologies for assessing

human perception of noise, determining intrusive noise ratings, and a method to assess unbiased annoyance.

Experience Summary:

In 1973 I established Awhitu Services Ltd, an environmental consultancy, in New Zealand. My work experience

since then has been involved in both the private and public sectors, in the broad fields of environmental and

public health. My work in public service has included a position as a Senior Environmental Health Officer (1985-

1989) and as Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (1989-1992) for local governments in New Zealand. I

was a Principal Environmental Officer for the Department of Environment and Heritage (currently the DEHP) in

Queensland charged with the responsibility to develop and promote the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy

1997. Following this I have established two businesses working in the field of acoustics.

Acoustar Work, Health and Safety Training Centre 2014-current

In 2014 I established the Acoustar Work, Health and Safety Training Centre. Acoustar is a Registered Training

Organisation (Reg. ID 41013) and provides BSB41415 Certificate IV in Work, Health and Safety training and two

specialist post-graduate level noise management units MSS025008 Monitor and evaluate noise and MSS027008

Coordinate noise management activities. My current roles are: CEO, Acoustar Work Health and Safety Training

Centre; and Registrar, Acoustar Board of Studies.

29 | P a g e

Noise Measurement Services Brisbane 1999-current

In 1999 I established Noise Measurement Services in Brisbane Australia. The work undertaken by Noise

Measurement Services Pty Ltd involves specialised acoustical and psychoacoustical investigations for public

authority, commercial and industrial clients and individuals. My general acoustical work includes environmental

noise surveys, social surveys and analysis, health impact assessment and noise impact prediction modelling:

• Presenting evidence as an expert witness in noise assessment

• Assessment of noise from light industry onto noise sensitive places

• Assessment of quarry noise on residential neighbours

• Mine site, blasting and drilling assessments

• Environmental noise impact assessment and prediction modelling for residential estates and residential

developments

• Traffic noise impact assessments for residential developments

• Airport noise assessments in New Zealand, Australia and Thailand

• Remote telemetry systems for noise monitoring

• Industrial noise impact assessments and associated noise management plans

• Industrial surveys for occupational noise assessment

• The effects of noise from patrons and music on residential neighbours

• Vehicle noise compliance (ADR)

• Research investigations into the effects of various noise sources on sensitive and non-sensitive

communities

• Preparation and presentation of training courses in community and individual noise impact analysis

• Intrusive noise: its definition, measurement and assessment

• Wind farm noise assessment

• Development of personalized sound reinforcement and sound quality instrumentation and protocols

New Zealand 1998-1999

For two years (1998-1999) I was an advisor with the NZ National Environmental Noise Service as part of its health

promotion duties to assist Health and Hospital Services of the New Zealand Ministry of Health to improve,

protect and promote public health:

• Advisory position with the NZ National Environmental Noise Service as part of its health promotion

duties to assist Health and Hospital Services to improve, protect and promote public health.

• Professional acoustical advisory work on behalf of the Ministry of Health, New Zealand, to public

health services through the services of the National Environmental Noise Service

• Development of acoustical standards (New Zealand Standards Association Acoustical Committee;

6801, 6802)

Queensland State Government 1993-1997

In the period 1993-1997 I was employed as a Principal Environmental Officer in the Policy Division of the

Department of Environment and Heritage to develop environmental values under the Environmental Protection

Act to mitigate environmental harm or nuisance due to noise:

• Primary task: standardising workable noise control criteria within Queensland (state and local

government agencies) and in co-operation with other States.

• Responsible for Ministerial responses in accord with the work being undertaken within the Policy

Division Responsible for the development of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 1997 for the

Queensland State Government.

30 | P a g e

• Responsible for evaluation of national and international researches and trends on environmental

matters and application of new ideas and technology to environmental policies and management

guidelines.

• The role involved the development of workable dispute resolution processes for environmental issues

(air / noise / water / waste disposal / complaint procedures)

• Preparation of the Regulatory Impact Statement with respect to the Policy.

The EPP (Noise) 1997 and its successor of 2008 define the environmental values required under the

Environmental Protection Act 1994. The environmental values to be enhanced or protected under the 1997

policy are the qualities of the acoustic environment that are conducive to: the wellbeing of the community or a

part of the community, including its social and economic amenity; or, the wellbeing of an individual, including

the individual’s opportunity to have sleep, relaxation and conversation without unreasonable interference from

intrusive noise. My involvement with the development of the 1997 policy with its extensive community and

industry discussions and forums, gave me a very comprehensive understanding of the effects or noise on people,

nuisance and annoyance factors, and the potential for noise mitigation for individuals and communities.

Local Government Experience

My previous work experience included approximately 18 years in total as an environmental health officer for

various Councils in New Zealand. In these varied roles I had daily interaction with the public and daily experience

with nuisance complaints under the Health Act, Noise Control Act, planning legislation and Bylaws. I spent some

5 years’ as Senior Health Inspector for a City Council and had extensive experience with nuisance investigations

for environmental and food safety/hygiene matters.

For approximately 3 years I worked for a NZ local authority in the position of Director of Planning and Regulatory

Services. This period involved the change process when NZ local governments were amalgamated in 1989 with

new processes and systems needing to be developed for the planning processes. The role involved oversight of

staff charged with responsibility for planning, building control, plumbing and drainage, dangerous goods, food

hygiene and nuisance investigations and reporting to Council of relevant matters.

Significant Noise Attitudinal and Ambient Levels Studies

In 1992-93, I undertook extensive acoustical and attitudinal studies for 5 local governments in the South Island,

New Zealand. The research was based on the USEPA methodologies and approximately 1200 interviews and 290

acoustical surveys were conducted. A summary of the surveys was presented at the 1993 New Zealand

Acoustical Society Conference. This research is significant because it is one of the very few in Australasia to

actually identify ambient sound levels and the attitude of people to noise in their environment. Since this major

study I have maintained my involvement in acoustical and attitudinal studies.

Wind Farm Investigations

In the past 10 years I have prepared noise and perception assessments of 24 wind farms; 2 in Canada, 7 in New

Zealand, 10 in Victoria (Australia), 1 in New South Wales and 4 in Queensland. My experience with wind farms

includes acoustical and human evidence before the New Zealand Environment Court and the Victorian VCAT.

As part of my research work I have personally investigated complaints of noise from the Makara, Te Apiti,

Tararua, and Te Rere Hau (New Zealand), Waubra and Cape Bridgewater (Victoria), Waterloo (South Australia)

and Windy Hill (Queensland) wind farms. I have prepared impact assessments for residents potentially affected

by the Berrybank, Cape Bridgewater, Chepstowe, Cherry Tree, Moorabool, Mortlake, Stockyard Hill, The Sisters,

Waubra and Yaloak wind farms in Victoria. I have authored (singly, and in association with colleagues) peer-

31 | P a g e

reviewed papers on wind farm noise related topics including quality of life, nuisance, annoyance, the application

of the precautionary principle in relation to a specific activity, and the resulting duty of care responsibilities for

parties involved.

In 2012 I completed a major research program into wind farm noise at Waubra and Cape Bridgewater, Australia.

Based on the results of the study it can be argued that, when exposed to wind farm noise and wind turbine

generated air pressure variations, some residents will more likely than not be so affected that there is serious

harm (also termed ‘significant adverse effect’) to their health. By ‘serious harm’ it is meant harm that is more

than mere annoyance and that can be quantified in terms of reported illness, sleep disturbance or other physical

effect. A measure of serious harm is if the exposed individual is adversely affected to the extent that he or she

is obliged to remove themselves from the exposure in order to mitigate the harm.

In 2011 I was invited to be a Guest Speaker at the National Health and Medical Research Council Forum “Wind

Farms and Human Health’. I have presented submissions to various Australian Senate hearings concerning noise

from wind farms and human perception of wind farm noise.